[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 64 (Wednesday, May 11, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2864-S2870]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                            Energy Security

  Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, I say to my friend from Oklahoma, 
absolutely, I am aware of the quantity and value of Alaska oil and gas 
today. I rise to discuss this issue, as well as a few others related to 
the issues of oil and gas.
  I rise to discuss an issue foremost on the minds of my constituents 
and a concern to all Americans: the rising cost of energy. I wish to 
outline the proposals aimed at providing short-term relief for high 
prices at the pump and to ensure America's long-term energy security. 
These are the issues which have been discussed many times in this 
Chamber. The time for talk has passed. The time to act is now. High 
energy prices today already are pinching the pocketbooks of families 
and crippling our small businesses across my State and across this 
country.
  When I was home over the recess, I visited the roaded areas of 
Alaska. These are communities connected by our highway road system, 
from Kenai Peninsula to Fairbanks, where gas prices are well over $4 a 
gallon. As one can see on the poster next to me, they range from $4.15 
to $4.45 a gallon. These prices might look good to some of my 
colleagues who saw gas prices over $5 a gallon in their States, but off 
the road system in Alaska prices are much higher. The fact is prices 
for gasoline and home heating oil never came down in rural Alaska. They 
have been well over $5 a gallon for years. Some places, such as 
Anaktuvuk Pass are nearly $10 a gallon.
  I started a discussion with Alaskans on Facebook to just see how 
these high prices are affecting their budgets.
  Some families are already facing tough choices to make their budgets 
balance. For families commuting into Anchorage from the Mat-Su Valley 
every day, they are forced to pay more than $100 a week to fuel up. 
That is

[[Page S2866]]

more than a pocketbook pinch, it is a punch.
  Even worse, families know the price isn't coming down anytime soon. 
Even though speculation ranges all over the place, prices are expected 
to rise still another 30 to 40 cents by July.
  Mr. President, families know the price of fuel is not coming down 
anytime soon. As I mentioned, it is continuing to rise. It is not just 
affecting families but businesses. They feel the sticker shock also at 
the pump. We are seeing businesses through rising food and delivery 
prices making up the difference. These families and businesses expect 
us to act now. No more excuses.
  Energy is one place where we should be able to find bipartisan common 
ground. I have been calling for a comprehensive energy bill from day 
one in the Senate. Our lack of progress is frustrating. We were real 
close last spring, but now here we are again.
  We need to provide Americans with reliable and affordable energy in 
three ways: short-term relief for consumers, new renewable energy 
sources for reliable electricity prices and keep strong investment in 
alternative transportation systems, and increase domestic oil and gas 
production so we are not dependent on unfriendly foreign sources.
  First, the short term, which I call the pocketbook relief. We must 
help families keep their budgets balanced and help ensure that 
increasing consumer confidence doesn't falter. To do that, I have 
introduced the Family Account to Save on Transportation--or the FAST 
Act--to help families get through high gas prices over the next 2 
years.
  This bill will allow us to set up pretax transportation savings 
accounts--just like medical savings accounts--to help offset the pain 
of high gas prices on the family pocketbook. The bill would sunset in 2 
years, so it would have no long-term burden on the Federal budget.
  Second, we have to bring online alternative power sources to buffer 
power companies from price shocks of rising oil and gas prices. No 
matter where you are in Alaska, you don't have to go far to find 
alternative energy sources--wind, tidal, geothermal, and hydro. Even in 
these tough budget times, this is a good investment to strengthen our 
economy far into the future.
  The same is true for alternative transportation systems and fuels. We 
must fully support efforts to develop electric, hybrid, and highly 
efficient vehicles. At the same time we must recognize most working 
families cannot afford to purchase a new vehicle. So we need to find 
other ways to reduce their transportation costs, such as greater 
investment in city-to-city commuter services.
  The recent investment in high-speed rail is positive but is not 
reaching most of the country, and will not. Even in Alaska we have the 
potential for commuter rail. It is critical to move commuters from city 
to city and cut the $100-a-week gas prices folks from Mat-Su pay as 
they drive into Anchorage for employment.
  Solving our energy security challenge cannot just focus on reducing 
consumption. Yes, it is important. But we must cut the use of fossil 
fuels in all sectors--as identified through consumption, especially 
transportation--but we also need to increase our domestic production.
  Every new oil and gas development buys our country more energy and 
national security while also creating American jobs. Unfortunately, we 
are going in the wrong direction. Thirty years ago, 28 percent of our 
oil was imported; today it is 60 percent.
  While our largest share of oil imports comes from Canada, too much is 
coming from unstable countries or those openly hostile to the United 
States. Not only will we become increasingly dependent on these 
countries for our oil, we are exporting over $1 billion a day. Let me 
repeat that: We export $1 billion a day.
  In my home State of Alaska we have vast potential to increase 
America's energy security. The fact is, developing Alaska's oil and gas 
resources buys our country decades of energy security by offsetting 
foreign imports from unfriendly countries.
  Consider a few examples which I have reflected on the board next to 
me.
  Developing offshore resources in the Chukchi and the Beaufort Sea 
will produce 1.8 million barrels of oil a day. This is easily enough to 
offset oil imports from Saudi Arabia. We could even cover Iraq too. 
Developing the oil beneath the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, ANWR, 
could offset imports from Nigeria. Developing the CD-5 project in the 
National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska--the National Petroleum Reserve-
Alaska, set up for petroleum products and production--and BP's Liberty 
project could replace daily imports from Libya.
  This does not even include the tremendous onshore and offshore 
natural gas resources we have in Alaska. One-third of the country's 
supply is in Alaska. So why aren't we developing these enormous 
resources in my State? Two words: politics, bureaucrats.
  Mr. President, earlier this year President Obama went to Brazil where 
he declared that America wants to be a customer for Brazilian oil and 
natural gas. I have to say, we don't need to go to Brazil to do that. 
We can do it right here in Alaska, with our people, our resources and 
our opportunities. I reminded the President of that, and I will remind 
him on a regular basis. To his credit, I will say later in the month he 
did mention Alaska. In his call for energy and domestic energy 
independence, he mentioned Alaska.
  Unfortunately, the bureaucrats in his administration are not 
listening. They are tossing up barriers to additional Alaskan oil and 
gas production every chance they get. Sadly, some of my colleagues in 
this body are not much better. Instead of addressing the problem with 
specific solutions, they are going for headlines by dragging energy 
company executives before committees or proposing the rollback of 
incentives for increased domestic energy production, some of which have 
been on the books for decades.
  Let's stop the headline grabbing and get serious about energy 
security. I have three ideas: First, better coordinate the Federal 
offshore permitting process. I introduced legislation before our recess 
to create the Arctic OCS Coordinator, modeled after legislation the 
late Senator Ted Stevens passed establishing a Federal gas pipeline 
coordinator. My bill addresses the problem too many projects are caught 
up in.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. BEGICH. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 3 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BEGICH. Too many projects are caught up in what I call the 
``regulatory whack-a-mole.'' You think you have smacked down one 
regulatory hurdle and another one pops up. My bill would give authority 
to work across the agencies causing companies so much heartburn today--
the EPA, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the Department of the 
Interior, just to name a few.
  Second, let's align the clean air standards for offshore drilling 
permits among the affected Federal agencies. We must have a level 
playing field whether you are in Alaska or the Gulf of Mexico or the 
Eastern United States.
  As my colleague from Louisiana knows--who is here joining me on the 
floor--Louisiana has one rule, and Alaska has another rule for the same 
issue.
  Third, let's invest in American transportation and safety 
infrastructure to develop oil and gas resources in frontier areas. The 
fact is, we need a far greater Coast Guard presence in the Arctic for 
oilspill prevention and response.
  We also need to invest in our pipeline infrastructure, including the 
Alaskan Natural Gasoline, to move oil and gas resources from the Arctic 
to other U.S. regions.
  There is a lot of talk right now about ending tax incentives for the 
oil and gas industry. With the high profits right now, these companies 
are easy targets. But one thing every Alaskan knows--just because you 
have an easy target doesn't mean it is the right thing to shoot. It 
would not decrease gas prices at the pump for our families and our 
small businesses. It will discourage companies, especially the 
independents, from domestic investment and job creation.
  As someone who represents a State with the highest energy prices in 
the country, and some of the best renewable and traditional energy 
resources, I am ready to join my colleagues on both

[[Page S2867]]

sides of the aisle to address America's energy needs now. We need to 
set a hard target. That is why I am asking my colleagues to get serious 
about a real energy plan and give Americans freedom from high gas 
prices by the Fourth of July.
  Let's work together, roll up our sleeves and pass a real 
comprehensive energy plan our families and our small businesses can get 
behind. Let's finally invest in our energy future and put the reforms 
in place for our long-term energy security.
  Mr. President, I recognize my colleague from Louisiana--another great 
State for oil and gas development--is on the floor with me, and I yield 
the floor at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Alaska for 
asking me to join him in a general presentation and potential colloquy 
between the two of us about the importance of continuing our support 
for oil and gas production in the United States by the large 
international companies that have operated in our country and around 
the world now for many years, as well as by the hundreds, if not 
thousands, of independents that operate doing the same.
  There is going to be a bill that will be debated in the Senate 
Finance Committee tomorrow. It is S. 940, sponsored by the Senator from 
New Jersey, our colleague, Senator Menendez. I want to go on record in 
strongly opposing it, and I will give some reasons why, and I urge my 
colleagues, when this bill comes up--which I understand it will come 
directly to the floor of the Senate without being heard, as is 
tradition, in the committee--to vote it down.
  I doubt the bill, in its current form--or in any form that it could 
be modified--can get the 60 votes necessary for passage, but I would 
like to add my strong voice in urging my colleagues to read this bill, 
to look at it and understand the inherent unfairness in it, the lack of 
significant deficit reduction, and the fact that it will not--although 
it is being touted to do so--reduce gasoline prices by one penny.
  Mr. President, I want to start with some facts that people might find 
very interesting, or hard to believe, based on the political rhetoric 
they have been hearing from the sponsors of this bill and others in the 
Senate. The story line goes something like this: Big oil makes huge 
profits at the expense of everyone. They pay virtually nothing in 
taxes, and we subsidize them. Why are we doing this? Why don't we stop?
  I think it would be good to get a few things clarified for the 
record. It may be surprising to American taxpayers to know that of the 
$16.6 billion spent on U.S. energy subsidies over the course of 1 year, 
oil and gas subsidies account for less than 13 percent. I want to say 
that again. Of the $16.6 billion spent on U.S. energy subsidies over 
the course of 1 year, fuels such as renewables, refined coal, nuclear, 
solar, hydro, et cetera, account for 85 percent. Oil and gas is less 
than 15 percent--actually, 13 percent.
  Now, you would think because of this bill, S. 940, that big oil and 
gas companies are getting all the subsidies, making all the profits, 
paying no taxes, and the rest of us are suffering. Nothing could be 
further from the truth.
  Let me repeat: This bill, S. 940, is going to repeal virtually all 
subsidies from one industry, and one sector of one industry--oil and 
gas companies--but they only get 13 percent of all the energy 
subsidies.
  Why aren't we talking about the other 85 percent? Some of them--in 
some people's minds--create some harm to the environment, whether it be 
dams blocking up rivers so fisheries are extinct or whether it is coal 
that has its own issues. Of course nuclear doesn't have any problems. 
We must not be paying attention to what is happening in Japan. Why are 
we singling out one sector of one part of the energy industry to repeal 
the subsidies when it will, in fact, have the opposite effect of 
reducing gasoline prices? Even one of its cosponsors said publicly for 
us not to be fooled, this will not reduce gasoline prices. Why are we 
doing it? Will it create jobs? No. It will actually hurt job production 
in the United States.

  According to the EIA study--which is the U.S. Government, not a 
company--published in 2008, the oil and natural gas industry received 
13 percent of the subsidies while producing 60 percent of the energy. 
Let me repeat. This industry got only 13 percent of the subsidies but 
produced 60 percent of the energy. But the bill, S. 940, is going to be 
debated in the Finance Committee where the industry leaders are going 
to be called to talk about this gimmick, 940, but the oil and gas 
industry, with their independent counterparts, produced 60 percent of 
the energy.
  I would like to say where exactly that energy comes from because it 
really is a bone of contention. The Senator from Alaska will appreciate 
this. The sponsor of this bill represents a State that is one of the 
highest deficit energy-producing States in the Nation because some of 
us do this better than others. Louisiana produces a lot of energy. 
Alaska produces a lot of energy. Texas produces a lot of energy.
  Some States like to consume a lot and produce nothing. That would be 
like some of our States that put some of their land in agriculture so 
they can produce food--other States saying: We don't want to produce 
food, but we expect you to provide it to us--provide it to us when we 
want it, how we want it, and for the price we want it. And I am tired 
of it, and so are the people I represent.
  I want to put this deficit chart up here. We have seen a lot of 
deficit charts about deficits of infrastructure, real deficits of 
money, debt. Let me talk to you about the deficit and the debt owed by 
some States in this Union that consume a lot, talk a lot, and produce 
nothing.
  California has the greatest deficit. It consumes a tremendous amount 
of energy, and the imbalance is the highest. It produces the least, 
consumes the most. To California's benefit, before Senators Feinstein 
and Boxer run down here to argue this point, I want to concede this one 
point: California has been on the forefront of energy conservation and 
efficiency. This chart does not recognize them for that, but I will 
concede that point, and I am going to have some further data to explain 
that. California, while it doesn't produce a lot of energy--it consumes 
a tremendous amount--at least California has been in the forefront of 
savings and efficiency because there are a lot of States up here that 
don't produce, don't conserve, are not efficient, and all they want to 
do is yell about high gas prices. Why don't you do something about it?
  Florida is a perfect example. Florida has a net deficit in Btu's. I 
guess it is 3.889 billion. Florida is a great example. I don't think 
Florida does much in nuclear. I don't think they do much in hydro. They 
have a lot of Sun; I don't know how much solar they are doing. They 
will not let anybody produce oil and gas on or off their shores, but 
they sure fill up a lot of their gas tanks every day. They sure fire up 
those hotels and those restaurants with that energy. Where do they get 
their energy from? If it weren't so serious, it would be laughable. 
They have a gas line that goes from Mobile, AL, to the Florida 
peninsula. We pump the gas out of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama, 
put it in a pipeline, and ship it under the Gulf of Mexico so they can 
light up their State. Would they ever think of putting in an oil and 
gas well or building a nuclear powerplant? If they can't do that, why 
don't they conserve their energy?
  New York is another user of energy which produces very little; Ohio, 
Georgia, New Jersey, North Carolina, Michigan, and Illinois. Some of 
these States, such as New Jersey and Michigan--think about what they 
look like. They have big factories, they have big industries. Michigan 
is home to the automobile industry, so they use a lot of gas in 
producing things we all use, so we want to give them credit for that. 
But still the fact remains that Michigan uses a lot more energy than it 
produces.
  Then you get down here to what I call the gold-star States.
  We get criticized so much, we are treated like we are some sort of 
pariah sometimes, but I think we do a great job--Kentucky, Alaska, New 
Mexico, Louisiana, West Virginia, and Wyoming. Alaska is up here 
somewhere--Alaska is right here. Kentucky, Alaska, New Mexico, 
Louisiana, West Virginia, and Wyoming. We produce enough energy for 
everybody in our State, what we need, and we export it to everyone else 
in America who needs

[[Page S2868]]

it. And what do we get? We get bills like this that go after, directly, 
the big companies in our State, that work in our State, to somehow put 
them in a position to make them feel as if they are not really good 
companies, they are not American companies, they don't pay tax, they 
get all these subsidies. I am going to read into the record what taxes 
they pay. It is going to surprise you. Then, on top of that, we get 
moratoriums, we get permatoriums. We can't even drill for the oil we 
have. We can't even look for the oil we might have.
  When I go home, my people ask me--and it is a very hard thing for me 
to answer, and maybe they ask Senator Begich the same thing--they say: 
Senator, since we do so much to produce energy for the country, why do 
we pay $4 a gallon for gasoline and sometimes we pay a little bit more 
than everybody else? They don't produce anything, Senator. Why do we 
pay so much?
  Can the Senator tell me what he answers his people because I don't 
know what to tell them other than this place is a little screwed up. 
Until I get an answer for that, and I will ask the Senator--go ahead, 
what do you tell them?
  Mr. BEGICH. That is a hard one to answer because they see the oil 
flowing. As I mentioned, we have $10-a-gallon gas in some of our 
communities--$10 a gallon. So it is hard to explain that, yes, we are 
the big producer, but the rest of the country then picks on us.
  I am just listening, and it is unbelievable, the green slice you have 
there.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I say to the Senator, because he raises an excellent 
point, President Obama is not the first President to go overseas and 
ask them to produce more oil to send it to us. This goes on--President 
Clinton did it. President Bush did it. We beg Saudi Arabia to produce 
more energy. We ask OPEC to please don't tighten it so much so our 
prices--why don't you go to the local OPEC or the local producers, 
which are Kentucky, Alaska, New Mexico, West Virginia, Louisiana, and 
Wyoming? Why don't you help us produce more, because we can do it. But 
we get shut down by bureaucracy, moratoriums, permatoriums, rules, 
regulations, EPA, refuges. We can't even get free to produce the energy 
that we can produce for this country. Then you have all these middle 
States that do a fairly good job on balance.
  But I tell you, if we passed a law here that said every State in 
America had to produce the energy it needed, we would have an energy 
policy all right, Senator Begich knows. I don't know what it would be, 
but it would be an interesting rule, you know, just like in the old 
days--if you wanted food, you produced it. It would be a great law. 
Every State in America, all 50, if you consume energy, you need to 
produce something. You could produce it by wind; you could produce it 
by hydro; you could produce it by nuclear; you could stop driving your 
automobiles and have everybody walk; you could give everybody a 
bicycle. We don't care. Just eliminate the energy deficit. That would 
be a very interesting discussion to have, and I might even file a bill 
like that because this one is so ridiculous, people might actually read 
the one I would file.
  Let me give a couple of other stats, and then I know I am exceeding 
my time. I want to ask for 2 more minutes. I want to put to rest this 
issue that the big oil companies don't pay any taxes.
  This is from Forbes magazine, so take it as it is. It is slanted 
toward industry, I give you that. It is not left of center, it is right 
of center, sometimes very right, but I think you can check these 
figures with anybody else. I am assuming they are accurate. This is for 
the top 20 most profitable U.S. corporations in 2010.
  ExxonMobil's net income was $30 billion. Their tax rate was not 10 
percent, not 15 percent, not 25 percent, not 35 percent--a 45-percent 
tax rate. Their estimated worldwide tax bill was $90 billion. Of $10 
billion in total taxes paid in the United States, $3 billion was income 
tax. Let's go on. ConocoPhillips' tax rate was 42 percent; pre-income 
tax, $19.8 billion; net, $11.4; tax rate, 42. Chevron was 40 percent.
  So let's review: Exxon, 45 percent; Conoco, 42; and Chevron, 40. Do 
you want to know what Google was? Google is a pretty big company. They 
don't produce oil and gas. They have another line of business. Their 
tax rate was only 21 percent.
  Let's take Hewlett-Packard--not in my State, in other parts of the 
country. Their headquarters is not in the South. Their tax rate was 20 
percent. Apple Computer's tax rate was 24 percent.
  People will say: It is not just the rate; it is what you paid. But I 
think if you look--Coca-Cola, very big company, their tax rate was down 
to 16.7 percent.
  Does this make sense? No. So that is why we need tax reform, 
significant transformational tax reform, so all big companies pay 
similar in taxes and we eliminate some of these loopholes that don't 
make sense. I could be for that. I could be for that when we are 
talking about Google, Apple, GM, GE, ExxonMobil, and Chevron. But if 
you are going to ask me to stand here and pick on one industry that 
pays billions of dollars in taxes, that only gets 13 percent of the 
energy subsidies, that hires--350,000 people in my State are hired by 
oil and gas companies or their contractors or affiliates, large and 
small, not just the large. And when I see what our people produce and 
these States produce nothing, or virtually nothing, and you ask me can 
I vote for a bill like this? No. Not only can I not vote for it, it is 
laughable.
  I hope the Senator from Alaska and I--I know we are going to be the 
skunks at the garden party because, as Democrats, to be against this 
bill, it is going to be because we just have to coddle this industry. I 
don't coddle this industry. I am holding BP's feet to the fire. I want 
Exxon to pay the tax they owe. I want Chevron to pay the tax they owe. 
I want this President and this administration to stop the moratorium 
and the permatorium in the gulf. I want to get our people back to work.
  I would much love to reduce gasoline prices, and one way we could do 
it is if cars did not have to be so dependent on gasoline. Why don't we 
give a significant subsidy to produce different kinds of automobiles? I 
would vote for that. I have voted for that. If you had a car right now 
running on natural gas, you would be paying the equivalent of $2 a 
gallon for gasoline at the pump. That is much better, I say to the 
Senator, than $10. Why don't we take some money and invest in natural 
gas vehicles or more incentive for electric vehicles? If people are 
really serious about breaking the back of OPEC, then start building the 
kinds of automobiles and infrastructure in this country necessary to do 
it and stop introducing gimmicks such as this that might get you a few 
political points in the short run, but it is not leading us in the 
right direction.
  Having beat up on the Democrats, let me say something about the 
Republican side.
  All they want to talk about is drill, drill, drill. We cannot drill 
our way out of the situation we are in. Do I want to drill more? Yes. 
Do I think there is more than 2 percent of the world's oil and gas in 
America? Yes. But you know what? You have to look for it in order to 
find it.
  We are under certain provisions--the Senator knows in Alaska, we 
cannot even go look for the oil and gas we might have. The Senator 
might want to talk about that, and I am going to close in a minute.
  Mr. BEGICH. To the Senator from Louisiana, let me say, when you 
describe the moratorium or whatever they call it in the gulf, it is 
even worse in the Arctic, or even on, as I mentioned when I had the map 
and I showed the National Petroleum Reserve. That is not a name picked 
out of the sky by the industry. That was set aside by the government to 
prepare our country for more energy independence decades ago.
  We cannot even get a permit to go across--in some places, they call 
it a stream. But everyone else now calls it a big river. It is not. It 
is a very small area. But a bridge to go over to explore for what you 
described--we cannot even get onto the land the government set aside 
that would then determine if we have oil and gas. We believe there is, 
because obviously they have--it is set aside as the National Petroleum 
Reserve.
  But the other piece to this--the Senator hammered away on it and I 
agree with her--if we are skunks at the garden, so be it, because it is 
a question of

[[Page S2869]]

fairness. As the Senator described the 13 percent of the subsidies or 
incentives they receive, they produce 60 percent of the energy. But her 
other statistic is even more dramatic.
  Of the remaining 87 percent of those subsidies, they only produce 40 
percent of the energy. If this were a business, you would eliminate 
that part of the equation because it does not give a good return on 
investment. But we are still doing that, because there is a lot of 
politics being played.
  The point on the tax issue. Like the Senator, I think there should be 
an overhaul to this tax system. But picking on one industry because it 
sounds good, rates good in the polls, gets you a couple of headlines, 
is not what the American people want us to do here. If anything, they 
are getting fed up with that.
  What they want us to do is sit down and, as you have described so 
eloquently in the description of the country, you bet, I would love 
every State to do it, produce. Then they would see what we go through. 
Because we are a collective group of States, we do our part, but we 
should not be picked up because we do more than our share, because we 
are trying to help out States that are producing vehicles or producing, 
you know, a lot of chemical industry, and other things, or the 
pharmaceutical industry. We can go through those lists that somehow do 
not end up on these, getting rid of their subsidies.
  Your point is right on. If there is anything we should be doing right 
now--I agree with the Senator--it is the issue of--when I open the 
paper and I see administration officials, current and past, saying the 
way we are going to control our energy cost is talk to Saudi Arabia. Is 
that our energy policy? Because that sure the heck is one that, one, 
does not create one job here; two, is the worst national policy from a 
national security perspective; and, three, it is foolish, as I 
mentioned earlier, that we export $1 billion a day out of this country 
to buy from countries--and in some cases good allies. Canada is a good 
example. Some of these countries are not our friends, but we are giving 
them cash so they can then use it against us. It does not make any 
sense. You are right, this piece of legislation they have put down 
without a committee process on it is a gimmick; a gimmick to get the 
next week of activity, get some press out there. But we have to be 
serious.
  I appreciate the Senator yielding for me to rant a little bit. I am 
glad you said the part too, the assumption is that these companies pay 
no taxes, that somehow they get the subsidies and they pay nothing. You 
bet you they are profitable. They are big companies. They are huge 
companies. But they pay taxes in the billions to the Treasury of this 
government. When you listed out all of those differential rates, that 
is again why we need tax reform. Then I am happy to have this 
discussion, but not singling out an industry because it is a good 
political score and good fodder for the newsprint and everything else. 
I appreciate the Senator yielding me a few more minutes to ramble there 
a little bit.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator. I wish to ask the Senator a final 
point. We are going to hear tomorrow speeches given about America is at 
the highest production levels ever. That may be true. But it is true 
for a very short period of time--maybe the next month or two--because 
as you can see, there is going to be a precipitous fall. Why? Because 
of the Deepwater Horizon, the shutdown in the Gulf of Mexico. Even 
though people say we are at the highest production levels we ever have 
been, it is going to be temporary. Then the production levels are going 
to decline down to the lowest level since 1997.
  I want people to understand, we are not on a path to produce more in 
America. We are on a path to produce less. And taking all subsidies 
away from the five major international oil companies is not going to 
change this line. It is going to make it continue to go down. It is not 
going to reduce the price of gasoline at the pump, not by one penny. It 
is not going to get us on the path to a strong, sound energy policy.
  I will say in conclusion, should some of these subsidies and tax 
credits be looked at? Yes, in a comprehensive format. And I will say, I 
will be open to the ones that are the least effective, the least 
necessary, and are fairly applied across companies such as Google, 
AT&T, GE, and other companies. I will be happy to do my part. People in 
Louisiana will do our part.
  But we are not, along with Texas and Oklahoma and Alaska, going to 
take it all on our shoulders. We have had enough. We have had high 
water. We have had high wind. We now have a high river. We have a 
moratorium. We have a permitatorium, and now we have no more subsidies.
  At least they left the independents out. I want to thank them for not 
putting independent oil and gas companies in this bill. But still, the 
big five pay a significant amount of tax. They take a smaller 
percentage of the overall subsidy. I think we need to do this in a 
fairer way.
  I am yielding my time.
  Mr. BEGICH. If I can make one last comment, the chart that you have 
up there, there is one other piece on there. It is the Alaska oil 
pipeline. We are at a little over 600,000 barrels a day going through 
there. We are losing 6 to 7 percent a year in volume, and it will not 
be a question--somebody will say: Well, you will get down to zero and 
then you will stop the pipeline. No. No. When we get down to a level of 
300,000 or 400,000 barrels, then it will be questionable if we can even 
run the line. Then you can actually potentially shut off the whole 
volume. So the chart there is important because we have to look at the 
long term. Because if we decide today to have a comprehensive energy 
plan that includes conservation, alternative energy, renewable energy 
and, yes, domestic production, the Senator from Louisiana knows, as I 
know, you cannot walk down the street and say, we are going to start 
drilling tomorrow and suddenly, voila, there is fuel. It is a 7- to 10-
year process. So that chart is a critical chart, because in order to 
reach that decline, you have to start doing something today. Unless we 
decide the policy of this country, what the energy policy of this 
country is, we will pick up the phone and we will call Saudi Arabia, 
Nigeria, Iraq, Iran, Libya--that is the list, that is our policy--then 
so be it. I think that is the worst policy we could have ever for this 
country.
  Again, thank you to the Senator from Louisiana. Again, if we are 
skunks at the garden, my view is we will be good-smelling skunks.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today the Senate continues its very 
rapid pace to confirm another of President Obama's judicial nominees. 
The Judiciary Committee's workload has not slowed since this Congress 
convened. I am pleased to report we are ahead of the pace of the 108th 
Congress. With this vote, the Senate will have confirmed 22 nominees in 
just 47 days. That is a rate of one judge almost every other day of 
Senate session. We have confirmed 32 percent of President Obama's 
judicial nominees this Congress compared to only 29 percent of 
President Bush's confirmed during the same time period.
  We have also reported out of committee another 11 nominees. We have 
reported out of committee 46 percent of President Obama's nominees sent 
to the Senate this year. That exceeds the 38 percent of President 
Bush's nominees reported out during a comparable period.
  Furthermore, we have held hearings on 10 nominees. Some of those, I 
expect, will be reported out of committee at our markup scheduled for 
tomorrow. In total, we have taken positive action on 43 of 71 judicial 
nominees submitted this Congress or approximately 61 percent of all 
nominees. I hope these facts will put to rest, once and for all, any 
complaints that we are delaying or obstructing judicial nominees.
  There are currently 89 vacancies before the courts. Yet the President 
has not sent nominees for 51 percent of those vacancies. He has, 
however, sent the Senate four nominees for seats which are not yet 
vacant. This is perplexing to me since the current vacancy rate is 10 
percent. I would think

[[Page S2870]]

the White House would concentrate on current vacancies. Nevertheless, 
we simply cannot confirm nominees who do not exist.
  I have a few remarks regarding the nomination we are voting on 
today--Arenda Lauretta Wright Allen, who is nominated to be U.S. 
district judge for the Eastern District of Virginia. Mrs. Allen 
received her B.A. from Kutztown State College in 1982 and her juris 
doctorate from North Carolina Central University School of Law in 1985. 
Following law school, she was commissioned into the U.S. Navy as an 
ensign. She served there as legal intern in the Naval Legal Service, 
Office of Judge Advocate General's Corps. In the same year, she was 
promoted to lieutenant and became a defense attorney for the Navy. In 
1988, the nominee became the staff judge advocate at the Naval Air and 
Engineering Center, where she was the sole legal advisor to the 
commanding officer.
  Leaving the Navy in 1990, Mrs. Allen joined the U.S. Attorney's 
Office for the Western District of Virginia as an assistant U.S. 
attorney. In 1991, she moved to the Eastern District of Virginia, where 
she remained for the next 15 years as an assistant U.S. attorney. In 
2005, the nominee left the U.S. Attorney's Office to become an 
assistant Federal public defender with the Federal Public Defender's 
Office for the Eastern District of Virginia. The American Bar 
Association Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary has given her 
the rating of majority ``qualified'', minority ``well qualified.''
  I congratulate the nominee and her achievement and public service. I 
urge my colleagues to support this nomination. Hopefully, it will be 
supported unanimously.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. STABENOW. I understand we are in the time of our Republican 
colleagues, so I would just indicate that if we have a Republican who 
comes to the floor during that time, I will certainly be glad to stop 
and yield to them.